Federal Judge in Hawaii Has blocked Travel Ban Hours before it is to Take Effect

Except the judges have this thing called "credibility" since they are judges and happen to have dedicated their careers to knowing and interpreting
the law. This is opposed to you, some guy on the internet with no formal legal education and likely has just gleamed his opinion off of social media
or a conservative news site.

Appeals to authority aren't fallacies when the authority you are appealing to is an actual authority on the subject matter. You can slander these
judges all day, but it does nothing to bolster your arguments and they still retain more credibility than you no matter what you say.

Authorities can be wrong. That's your folly. And you are simply repeating their folly because you have a blind faith in them, or "credibility" as you
call it.

Of course they can be wrong, and if SCOTUS overturns these decisions then that may be the case, but that is a bridge I will cross at the time. Until
then, their credibility trumps your credibility.

Yeah. They keep ignoring this even though its been pointed out to them several times in the thread already. I'm sure the response will be, "Well the
EO didn't mention religion."

It is a watered down version. The only difference I can see is the exclusion of Iraq.

A "watered down" version of an EO that was found by Federal Courts to likely be unconstitutional...And on sufficient grounds where Trump bloviated he
would fight it, but then scampered back to the drawing board instead?..

A "watered down" version of an EO that was found by Federal Courts to likely be unconstitutional...And on sufficient grounds where Trump
bloviated he would fight it, but then scampered back to the drawing board instead?..

The first amendment says American citizens have the freedom to pursue the faith of their choice. It does not apply to foreign citizens.

Actually the rights mentioned in the Constitution apply to everyone since the Constitution exists to restrict government's ability to infringe rights.
It doesn't actually grant them.

And the words in the first Amendment are clear as day. If you agree that the Second should be interpreted as read, then "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion..." should be clear as day to you.

Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action:
(1) violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Count I);
(2) violation of the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause on the basis of religion, national origin,
nationality, or alienage (Count II);
(3) violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment based upon substantive due process rights (Count III); (4) violation of the procedural
due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment (Count IV);
(5) violation of the INA due to discrimination on the basis of nationality, and exceeding the President’s authority under Sections 1182(f) and
1185(a) (Count V);
(6) substantially burdening the exercise of religion in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 200bb-1(a)
(Count VI);
(7) substantive violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A)–(C), through violations of the Constitution, INA,
and RFRA (Count VII); and (8) procedural violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(D) (Count VIII).

Where you get confused is around standing...

The plaintiff must not only show the unconstitutionality of the EO, but also must have standing...demonstrated deleterious impact of the EO to the
state or plaintiff..

So theoretically a law can be found unconstitutional, but never be sufficiently challenged in US Court by someone with standing.

So..Correct...a Yemeni citizen not in the USA and without citizenship could not challenge and unconstitutional law..Even if the courts found the law
unconstitutional...because they would not have standing.

BUT...the state of Hawaii and other states CAN challenge it if they can show the negative impact on the State or it's Citizens.

From Tourism, to University attendance to Professorships and a lot of other stuff...Hawaii made a sufficient argument that the EO would effect their
citizens negatively..

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.